User talk:Unique Ubiquitous

LGBT unfriendly ranking
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly for citing your source in the articles Brigham Young University, Grove City College, and Wheaton College (Illinois). Unfortunately, the one source you added did it itself appear to have sufficient information to determine if the "LGBT unfriendly" list meets the Reliable sources guideline. The Princeton Review is somewhat well-known, but the source gives no indication of what this ranking actually means: not only is there no information of TPR's methodology, but does not even list criteria or any description of why a school was listed or anything else LBGT-related. Without this information, it gives the appearance to undue weight being given to a ranking with no known foundation. This particlar ranking list seems particularly controversial, compared to more general college rankings, because it claims colleges to be "unfriendly" to a group of people who it may be highly controversial, or even unlawful in some circumstances, to be explicitly "unfriendly" to. Since it's making a claim about a controversial issue, it needs specific verifiable claims from multiple reliable sources, or at least verifiable, reliable sources to establish how TPR, if it normally respected, arrived at such a conclusion. If you have any questions, feel free to ask here. Thanks again for your help. --Closeapple (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Kudos for telling me that you reverted my edits and on taking the time to explain, but, none of what you stated is true.
 * "Unfortunately, the one source you added did it itself appear to have sufficient information to determine if the "LGBT unfriendly" list meets the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline." -Bullshit
 * "The Princeton Review is somewhat well-known, but the source gives no indication of what this ranking actually means: not only is there no information of TPR's methodology, but does not even list criteria or any description of why a school was listed or anything else LBGT-related. Without this information, it gives the appearance to undue weight being given to a ranking with no known foundation. This particlar ranking list seems particularly controversial, compared to more general college rankings, because it claims colleges to be "unfriendly" to a group of people who it may be highly controversial, or even unlawful in some circumstances, to be explicitly "unfriendly" to. Since it's making a claim about a controversial issue," -meaningless ramblings
 * "but the source gives no indication of what this ranking actually means:" -Verifiability not truth
 * "it needs specific verifiable claims from multiple reliable sources" -Bullshit, you want multiple sources to back up that the PR stated X when I already gave the PRIMARY source?
 * Sorry, I'm no fool, I reinstated two of my edits, the third was already re-added by an admin. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for all this
Sorry for the somewhat ugly tone of the discussion, UU- not a great example IMO of a civil and productive discussion at Wikipedia. We try... Staecker (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I knew I should have taken more time to think of a name, Waddling Through Fire would have been better, I hope you get it. There were many indications that a conversation with BB would not go well, I'm sure there are many editors, like yourself, that I could have a productive dialogue with, even if we were in disagreement. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to reboot the discussion at Talk:Brigham Young University, hopefully without the personal opinions and bickering. Staecker (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Your editing is being discussed
Hello Unique Ubiquitous. Please see User talk:EdJohnston. It has been proposed that you be notified about the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. I can imagine two ways you might respond: If you want to respond, you can leave your answer on my talk page. If you make no answer, it seems probable that you will be officially notified. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I already know about the restrictions, you don't have to notify me, or
 * 2) I object to what people are saying about my edits, and here's why my edits were reasonable.

Per your statement that you are already aware of the ARBPIA sanctions. A discussion about this happened at User talk:EdJohnston. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello again. It looks like you violated WP:1RR at Mahmoud Abbas on July 11. There may still be time for you to self-revert to avoid sanctions. Activism1234 added the material twice but his first edit does not count as a revert. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've already stated it would be a BLP infraction to include contentious information that is not sourced to at least 2 RS. Neither source provided is anywhere near a RS and BLP unquestionably overrides 1RR, but I'm sure you know this. Also I have never reported a DUCK at SPI, how do I do it, just post the single account and the reasons it is an obvious sock? Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think it's a BLP violation, consider opening a thread at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and ask if MEMRI is a proper source for that information. You may also consider doing your own research to see if you can find out what Abbas has said on those topics, using your own better-quality sources. If you want to make a filing at SPI, you will have to specify who you think they are a sock of. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm looking through the archives for MEMRI - this one made me laugh - the two people ranting on about how reliable MEMRI is are User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling and User:Tundrabuggy. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think statements like "MEMRI is a reliable source for claims made by MEMRI, not for statements of fact.", "Memri is indeed a partisan source... it is also a notable source. As such it is reliable as self-published source for statements as to Memri's opinion. However, WP:BLP limits using self-published sources in articles about living people" "Brian Whittaker of the Guardian (who has a Masters' in Arabic language) has exposed at least two cases where MEMRI promulgated translations which were misleading at best, and probably knowingly fraudulent. MEMRI has also been extensively criticized for its extreme one-sidedness in the guise of "Media Research". Finally, all of MEMRI's founders are former Israeli military intelligence officers, Israeli neo-cons with deep links to Likud, or both. That being said, MEMRI might sometimes be a reliable source for opinion and commentary, but I'm very leery about using such a group for factual information in the absence of independent confirmation." - followed by "Agree. It can be used if properly attributed, and when describing opinions and not facts." - "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. - as Eleland points out above, MEMRI has just the opposite reputation." at least 5 different editors - not including me, seriously question MEMRI as a RS, this easy makes it non reliable, especially for BLP. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I do hope people realize the editor who told Tim to block me also just re-added a BLP violation I had removed from Mahmoud Abbas. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What so I'm suppose to fly my flag and be continually harrassed by editors who have literally thousands of accounts who post racist material to my user page! I have never abusively used multiple accounts, my edits do not break any policies, there is no reason for me to be blocked. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, I am blocked so can someone just copy paste this to my old account, Bushranger says it's necessary bureaucracy.